Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ReformationFan; little jeremiah
"It drives me crazy when guys flip from one TV channel to another rapid-fire!"

That was explained 14 years ago by a Ladies Home Journal executive editor who gave a talk carried by C-SPAN2 one afternoon.

She took questions after her address, and a young woman of the Serious GenderFem Persuasion rose and asked her, locating her concern in the executive editor's comments, "Why do you think there isn't more women's programming on commercial television?"

The executive editor, stunned, groped for a second, and then asked her questioner if she'd been paying attention -- something along the lines of "what planet do you live on? -- It's all about women on TV. Why do you think men channel-surf? There's nothing on that remotely engages their interests outside the tiny ghetto of sports programming." </paraphrase>

Her expanded argument was that content was determined by advertisers, and women determine what advertisers want to emphasize, to attract "eyeballs". Men are not in the picture, usually, because women make almost all the family purchases.

Including cars. At this point, you many insert your favorite "she chose" story here -- my favorite is the guy (personal acquaintance) who warned his wife, when she went to look at the Mitsu Montero he'd test-driven, not to fall for the salesman's trick of getting her to drive it home, which often turns a casual interest into a lead-pipe cinch sale with women. She ignored her husband, brought the Montero home, and boom, she made the decision for them both without taking his reservations into account. Very common tale, unfortunately -- and a good argument for why men should, as they did in the 17th century, legally own their wives.

11 posted on 10/02/2011 3:01:27 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: lentulusgracchus
a good argument for why men should, as they did in the 17th century, legally own their wives.

I wonder which country you're talking about.

It certainly can't be England or the English colonies where common law was in effect.

Under common law, and most European countries had similar effects, married women had very few rights, but not because they were owned by their husbands. The legal theory was that the two were literally "one flesh," with all legal action of the unit taken by the husband. Thus the married woman did not exist legally as an individual. This was called the "female covert."

This continued as the legal doctrine pretty much throughout the 18th and into the 19th century. Changes over this period in the actual status of women were considerable, but were mainly social rather than legal.

Significant formal changes in the legal status of women did not occur until well into the 19th century.

OTOH, in the Old Testament wives were usually spoken of as being owned by their husbands.

18 posted on 10/02/2011 5:54:43 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: lentulusgracchus

You know my POV...

:-)

Feminism is one of the root causes of all modern social ills. Feminism includes a lot of stuff people don’t realize. Including the right to vote. I wouldn’t take it back now, but I would set restrictions of voting - reading comprehension perhaps; tax paying perhaps, vetting carefully as to citizenship for sure, no felons. Would have to think more seriously about it.


20 posted on 10/02/2011 8:17:58 AM PDT by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson